find_related_endpoints

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Find' suggests read-only operation, which is appropriate. The criteria for relatedness are disclosed, but no details on return format, pagination, or side effects are given.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No extraneous information; every word contributes to clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the tool's functionality and criteria but lacks details on output format, error handling, or any dependencies (e.g., requiring a prior OpenAPI detection). Could be more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. No new parameter context beyond the tool's overall purpose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool finds structurally related endpoints based on specific criteria (shared paths, identifiers, tags, URL patterns). The verb 'find' and resource 'related endpoints' are precise, and the criteria distinguish it from siblings like 'search_endpoints'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing structurally related endpoints but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool relative to siblings. No guidance on prerequisites or alternatives is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.